As we have seen in the Introduction to this study, there are numerous claims that the elaborate system of international institutions that was developed after World War II is “broken” and that every major international institution, as well as countless smaller ones, faces calls for major reform. To attempt to cover all or only the major international institutions would require a multivolume treatise and is way beyond the scope of this chapter and of this study. For present purposes, this chapter examines some of the most salient aspects of criticisms and calls for reform of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, and the international criminal tribunals, including the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and the International Criminal Court, as well as the so-called hybrid tribunals.

In order to evaluate the performance of these international institutions, it is necessary first to consider the criteria to be applied in judging their successes and failures. Has the performance of the institution concerned established its credibility and its relevance in fulfilling the goals of its founders? How effective has the institution been in helping states settle their disputes, for example, and has it avoided taking on issues where it cannot make an effective contribution? Has the institution at least avoided making a bad situation worse?

In evaluating the performance of these international institutions, it is also important to realize the enormity of many of the problems they were created to resolve.